I’m introducing a “column” of sorts here. From time to time I’ll be prone to just introduce a topic just because it annoys me. Please excuse me if I don’t apologize for venting.
Here’s #1 – Communion / the Lord’s Supper
I’ve worshipped in a variety of traditions, and I’ve become convinced that if I made a “Top Ten list of doctrines that have largely been made up as we go” this would be in the list for sure, and near the top at that. I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard one (or more) of the following about the Lord’s Supper in church:
1. Jesus is present in the bread and wine/juice (like he wouldn’t be there anyway–so is this something special? How do we know that?);
2. The spirit of Jesus is present in the bread and wine/juice (ditto);
3. Jesus (or his spirit) is “in and around” (in the room or something) the bread and wine/juice (ditto again);
4. Children must not partake of the Lord’s Supper, unless they have made a profession of faith (and been baptized in some circles);
5. We need to confess known sin before we partake of the elements, or else we might become ill and even die (at God’s hand);
6. The Lord’s Supper is a means of grace (without ever telling anyone what that’s supposed to mean, or how that doesn’t contradict salvation by grace through faith, or how forbidding children would make any sense in light of this!).
Arrgghhhh!!!
The main passage for the Lord’s Supper (its meaning) is 1 Cor. 11:17-33. The original event that spawned the institution is recorded in Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19, 20. The meaning of the bread and wine are of course found in John 6:22-71. I’ll give people a pass on John 6 (but if you read closely–and we will–it isn’t rocket science). I’ll be unpacking the items in the list and talking about them, but for now, here’s my question: where do we find ANY of the listed items above in these passages?
Regarding communion as a means of grace, this is something you will hear in Reformed circles a lot. Occasionally I listen to a show called the White Horse Inn with Michael Horton and Kim Riddlebarger and they use this term all the time in relation to communion. When I first heard this I thought wow that sounds like they are trying to add something to salvation which is odd coming from that tradition. (sola fide and sola gracia and all that).
Don’t forget 1 Corinthians 10:14-22.
I’m interested in your thoughts/exegesis of John 6 (I’m no rocket scientist).
As for #1, I stand with Luther! In his debate with Zwingli about the real presence of Christ, Luther said that Christ was in his cabbage soup too. The difference is that in the Lord’s Supper, the promise is made that Christ is present “for you.” That’s what makes it sacramental.
As for #3, you perhaps are recalling another Lutheran designation that Christ is present “in, with, and under” the elements of bread and wine. It was a way of trying to talk about real presence without having to use the Roman Catholic transubstantiation explanation. Luther’s argument is based solely on Scripture. Jesus said, “This IS my body… This IS my blood.” Unless you want to get Clintonesque and parse the meaning of “IS,” whatcha gonna do with that statement?
I agree with you on #5. In my Lutheran tradition, we regularly have a Brief Order of Confession and Forgiveness to start the service. So do I have to be forgiven before I can take Communion in order to be… forgiven?
#6: Yes, I do understand the Lord’s Supper to be a means of grace. It is not THE means of grace. It is not magic food. By faith, we experience Christ being present for us in bread/wine, and that is plenty grace-full!
I hope that you are not going to disappoint me by manifesting yourself as an ultra-Zwinglian:)
Comments to all:
to stephen – I’m not sure what an ultra-Zwinglian is, nor do I care. I want what we say about communion to be in the text, that’s all (hey, this is why it’s The Naked Bible).
question to you all: where in the texts about communion do we read that the rite / institution solicits the presence of Christ? Yeah, I know about omni-presence, but you get the point – where do we read that the practice is about the presence of Christ (as opposed to something else)?
others: Where in the texts about communion do we read that the rite is about Christ being presented to us? or that a promise is made that Christ is “for us”? Granted, this language comes from the last supper, but isn’t the death of Christ a past act? Where in Paul’s discussion of how the churches ought to practice this do we get these ideas?
1 Cor 10:14-22 is important in this regard, but how is it to be meshed with 1 Cor 11?
I’ll be giving my take on all this, but let’s start the discussion.
But isn’t it a logical conclusion or extrapolation of the text. I know that to believe that his presence is there you have to believe that somehow his body and blood are somehow in the room, but if you do take his body and blood to be in the room in the context of this meal then isn’t it a forgone conclusion that his “presence” is there and so an explicit statement of the same is not necessary in the text.
stephen: This is a very good / revealing post on several levels: (1) you (correctly) discern that I’m angling for the realization that the articulation of this doctrine is based on logical conclusions and extrapolations. But (2) the conclusions are only logical and the extrapolations only legitimate if Jesus is actually in the bread and wine–that is, the elements “contain” his body and blood in some way. If Jesus isn’t “in” the bread and wine, then these conclusions and extrapolations don’t coherently follow.
Consider: How is the idea that Jesus is actually present in the bread and wine to be understood? How can this be the case in the material world? Are we saying that Jesus’ resurrection body is materially present there (its molecules are there)? If not, then it would seem it cannot be materially present–else we have material presence without the material, which is nonsensical. Are we saying Jesus is “spiritually present”? If so, why is that presence isolated to the bread and wine? If one argue it isn’t isolated to the bread and wine, then what’s the point of all the debate over what’s “in” the bread and wine? The debate / issue would seem to be pointless.
(3) the comment is also telling in that it allows me to ask the next obvious question: logical conclusions and extrapolations made from the text aside, WHAT IS IT THAT THE TEXT ACTUALLY SAYS? Don’t worry about the logical conclusions and extrapolations (which would need to be tested by questions like I’ve posed above). If you just made a list of what the text says, what would you have?
I’m just a lowly music pastor, but I always thought the thrust of Jesus’ teaching on communion was that of “remembrance”? The point being, our salvation was not cheap…it was bought at a price – and Paul’s teaching on communion was to correct the abuses of the Lord’s Supper? Maybe I’m just too much of a simpleton…
to Mike W – is this your take because of the text, or because it was handed down to you?
I think your contribution here necessitates I make the next move.
Whoever, ….. will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.
How can someone be guilty of something that is not, in some way present, or partake or commune with something that is not, in some way, present?
Would you consider Luke 24:28-35 as relevant to understanding what Communion / the Lord’s Supper means?
to stephen – ah, but WHAT is present and WHAT is the violation? Read 1 Cor 11 carefully – Paul tells you.
No – the breaking of bread is something that happened in every Jewish household every day. They got to their destination and it was dinner time. I don’t see this as having a specific tie-in to the Lord’s Supper. When you see what was going on in 1 Cor 11 it will be clearer as to why this is different for another reason.
I’ll likely post on this tomorrow night (or, tonight, judging by what time it is now!).
Isn’t the last supper a remembrance of Yom Kippur (spelling?) or what is normally called Pass over?
When Israel would brake bread in memory of YHWH not killing their first born.. this would represent the bread, right?
and the wine represents the new covenant for atonement of sins, which was by the shedding of the sacrifical bllod, implemented by God thru Moses to Aaron for Israel…
maybe im completely off the subject hehe.
oh and the verses do not list any of the items mentioned.
rode: yes, there is certainly a link between the Lord’s Supper and Passover, and Passover was certainly about REMEMBERING the Lord’s deliverance — interesting, isn’t it? I would suggest (see the new post on this) that this point of connection is in complete harmony with Paul’s words on the Lord’s Supper.
Also, you are correct — none of the things I listed are in these verses.
Hi noob here. luke 22:19 “do this in rememberence of me” Since he is handing them the bread and wine and stating this is my flesh and blood than saying to do this in rememberance means he is establishing a ritual to do on passover or often to commorate his covenant that he gives his life and pours his life blood out for our sins. Those who Believe recieve everlasting life.Therefore its symbolic. not meant as literal. Designed to give his newly annointed Priests thier part in the sacrifice, in leu of the evil sacrifices of israel 1 corinthians 10:18″Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar? ”
He is saying as you get your daily sustenence for your body from the grain bread and wine that you get your daily Spirtual sustence from partaking of the sacrifice at the true alter, The Cross. just thinkin out loud here.
to Rebekah: Yes, Jesus is establishing some sort of “ritual” (don’t like the word b/c it seems to say the form is more important than the meaning) or institution here – agreed – and it is key that the focus (like Passover – who’da thunk it?) is REMEMBRANCE. Symbolic rather than literal for the stated reasons – agreed. What is “spiritual sustenance”? Are you saying: (a) salvation is lost if we don’t partake in the Lord’s Supper? doesn’t seem so; (2) we won’t grow if we don’t partake; (3) we will become spiritually weak if we don’t? Some other option? I’m wondering whether, if you answer “yes” to 2 or 3 how that works. I’d have my own take, naturally, and I suspect we’ll be close.
We are all spirit beings in flesh bodies although we have lost touch with who we really are. Even though we may not be aware of it I believe that by seeking God and his salvation(Jesus) Our spirits our edified and grow and are fed. In time as the spirit revives from its state of atrophy we can learn to walk in the spirit and not the flesh literally, both in our own spirit and in God’s because they are connected thats why satan likes us in the flesh so we cant access the Spirit of God. the act is an expression of faith and belief in the alter of Christ rather than the alters of men and lessor gods. Cant explain it really but it seems ritual and practices tied to faith whether its tied to God or creation its powerful on a spiritual level that we may not even be aware of. otherwise luceferians and secret groups(no names) wouldnt put so much stock in in so many rituals and numbers and dates etc.
Now that I have slept on this I think this. He is setting up a new covenent with his followers and has givin them a new institution and in that institution there must be ceremony that is , since it was instituted by Jesus himself, Worship. By keeping his commandments and this is one, we are taking part in ceremony establishing Christ as Lord and Messiah and is Worship. I cant give you scripture on this but I believe all that we do to draw closer to God increases the power of the spirit and deminishs the power of the flesh so I guess thats what I mean by sustenence. When we practice rightousness we feed our spirit over our flesh which is fed by Sin and pleasures thereof. To put in other terms and be redundit. personal note,you can delete this if you like. I’m not good at scripture by memory but as I read the bible I get colors and overall ideas by the Spirit but I’m working on it. I love the nitty gritty of laungage and researching the text like you do and taking it as text without past influence. but don’t have the resourses to do that and usually not the time. I guess thats what I like about your approach to the word it melds with my own personal belief that al things in Gods kingdom and word overall, is completely in agreement with each of its individual parts and should be appoached with reason and not emotion. Thanks for the Good stuff MSH.
oh also and you can delete this as well since I’m taking up so much space. I think that our salvation isn’t necessarily dependent on the ceremony but that anyone that really love God will do as Christ instructed and will be sign of that persons walk, relationship,seeking and desire so those that don’t keep it aren’t likely really seeking the Lord in thier life so they are basically the product of each other. This goes back to faith versus works. each without each other is not complete. So those that keep the ceremony are those that are in faith or they wouldnt likely keep the ceremony. I think Im digging myself a hole here LOL
I believe I have a cohearant response now LOL This made me work. Exodus 24:6-8
2 Corinthians 3:6
We are in covenent with the Jesus and the Spirit. So when we are obiedient to renew our covenet by practice of this ceremony(lack of better term) and do as commanded it is with the spirit as well as Jesus. By being sober in our self judgement of ourselves(body/flesh)and therefore living in repentence and subjection to Spirit our spirit is also renewed and fed and edified?
Last post I promise. you posted
John 6:41-59
41 So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, ”I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, ”Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me- 46 not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ”How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum
Ok so – 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.
I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
Since Jesus bring us our new covent and establishs a new tradition of rememberance that I believe is to replace the existing Passover tradition and in that his body is symbolized by the bread which is the sacrifice and since we are all called to be priests(1 Peter 2:9) we must partake of the sacrifice and so share the alter. By drinking the Wine it is symbolic of the sprinkling of the blood and is evidence of our covenent with him and the Spirit. He is simply saying that those that get the meaning of the new passover tradition he establishs, and the covent, and keeps the covenent and practice the tradition will have life in them because the Spirit is life and you cant get it unless you make covenent with him and the Spirit. But it begs the question. Can we truly only understand the meanings of these things and keep the covent and draw near because of Gods putting it in us in the first place?
Just an observation on #4 >>4. Children must not partake of the Lord’s Supper, unless they have made a profession of faith (and been baptized in some circles)<<
The first statement is obviously a direct practice from the distinctive practice of Believers Baptism, which has been extensively discussed. Much has been written about the results of this discussion in Puritanism in New England.
As to the second, Baptism preceding the Lord’s Supper, from the Baptist perspective, this injunction is a practical outworking of the warning not to partake “in an unworthy manner,” (1 Cor 11:27-29) seen as partaking “not discerning the Lord’s body ….” Paul uses the term ‘body’ all through the book with, in my opinion, intentional ambiguity, between the literal body of Christ, the universal body of the church, and the local church. From the Baptist perspective (distinctly if not solely), anyone who does not participate in the ordinance of water baptism administered by and into a local church (a Baptist view of 1 Cor 1:14-17) is not discerning the local church body. Paul’s emphasis on the Corinthian abuse of the local church assembly in 1 Cor 11, makes this application of the meaning a valid interpretation of this verse.
Of course, this particular stricture applies only to a Baptist view of the requirements and admonitions of Paul in 1 Cor 11. However, by this standard, this view is neither arbitrary nor extra-biblical. Rather, it is an attempt to follow a scriptural liturgy by adhering to the admonitions of Paul which form a major part of his statements to the Corinthian church in the book.
Unfortunately, too few Baptist churches explain the scriptural reasons for this view and rely on systematic arguments, such as “logically, the ordinance that symbolizes entrance to the body much precede the ordinance that symbolizes communion within the body.”
Colin: You may be surprised at my take on “an unworthy manner” and “not discerning the Lord’s body” – Paul telegraphs for us what he means by this in the wider context. I’m going to try and get that posted in the next day or two so we can go from there.
In answer to the means of grace or that “Christ’s death is past event” the question that I would pose to you is this, “How does that past event, His death as the propitiation for sins come to you today in a real and present way? I would say that is the Holy Spirit using the channel or delivery system of the Word & Sacraments to transcend time and space so Christ’s merits and work are forensically declared and applied to you personal. Here God has limited Himself by tying the Spirit to His W & S to deliver forgiven to you in a unique personal way “the for you aspect”. This grace must be delivered in some manner to you, then received in faith by you for forgiveness. To quote a favorite Luther phrase, “wherever there is the forgiveness of sins, there is life and salvation also.” We don’t find Christ apart from where God has attached His forgiveness, His means of His W & S in which the H.S. calls, gather, enlightens and keeps a person in the saving faith. This is where Jesus is located as the God-Man, the ascended God-Man, never again separated from His human nature but always with His divinity. Just some thoughts and answers to # 6
Enjoy the discussion. Just to note that only the Majority Text has the word “broken” in 1 Cor. 11:24.
Also John 6 is not talking about the Lord Supper but as Lutherans are often wont to do, we read Scripture too often with our eyes such that we bring the baggage of our theological prejudices with us and can’t help but seeing Communion and Baptism everywhere in Scripture. I’m not saying that this is correct when we do this, but too much the temptation is there for us.
revGreg: a couple items:
1) My answer would be “why do I need Christ’s death to come to me today in a real and present way if his blood has already been applied to my account through faith in his atoning sacrifice (sola fide)?
2) Just because the Majority Text has a reading and others don’t doesn’t mean that the reading reflects the original (it may or may not).
3) Lutherans aren’t alone here!
In response to MSH q #1 of May 22, Yes, it is applied to your account but my questions are
1) Do we still have our sinful nature (Old Adam) with us in this life?
2) Do we still sin much daily and need that continual forgiveness & most importantly the continued strengthening or assurance of that gifted faith received?
Paul denies that Abraham was justified by circumcision, but says that circumcision was a sign given to EXERCISE faith. [Rom. 4:9-12] Thus in using the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper [& others] there must be a faith which believes these promises and accepts that which is promised and offered in the sacrament. For a promise is useless unless faith accepts it. [No ex opere operato here] Sacraments are signs of the promises. When they are used there must be faith so that anyone who uses the LS uses it this way. Because this is a sacrament of the New Testament, as Christ clearly says in 1 Cor, 11:25, the communicant should be certain that the free forgiveness of sins, promised in the NT, is being offered to him. He should accept this by faith, comfort his troubled conscience, and believe the testimonies are not false but as certain as though God, by a new miracle, promises his will to forgive. As Paul writes in Rom. 10:10, :Man believes with his heart and so is justified.”
But to answer your question in short, the reason Christ needs to come is to continue to give us assurance of faith in the promises of God.
Christ’s flesh is life-giving flesh therefore only this God-man and no other human being can says truthfully, Matt. 18:20 “Where 2 or 3 are gathered in My name, there am I in the midst of them,” also Matt. 28:20, “I am with you always even to the end of the age.” These passages do not only mean that the Deity of Christ is present with us in the Christian Church and community and that this prsence of Christ in no way involves his humnaity.
Now to a specific verse that ties Christ to the LS, there are none BUT to answer from a lack of statement and say he is not there is to divide the Deity and humanity of Christ which cannot be done. Hope this answers you some.
I agree with you on point # 2.
revGreg: My answers to your answers:
1. No, we don’t have a sinful nature as believers. We have what Paul calls “the flesh” (our unredeemed body); the old nature (the old man) is dead, as Paul explicitly says in Romans 6. But this is a rabbit-trail.
2. I find this less than satisfactory. So, if I don’t take communion I have no assurance or can have no assurance — or I will invariably doubt my salvation? (Not taking communion here is different than refusing to take communion). Where is the Scripture text that says communion gives us assurance or is intended to give us assurance? Again, your response “makes sense” but is it derived from the text?
3. How does saying Jesus is not present at the Lord’s Table (the way I’m assuming you want him there) resulting in separating the deity and humanity of Christ? Makes no sense. How does not believing that do that – is one part there and another not?
Great discussion.
In regards to pt # 1, I hope you are not claiming to have no sin in this life, this side of heaven, or that you no long sin in this present body or time. For I look at Rom. 7 as Paul saying that in a way he is scizophrenic [sp], that is he know what is good but can’t help but continue to sin anyway because he finds himself doing the things he knows that are sinful and the good he wants to do he doesn’t do.
Or as we Lutherans are wont to explain “simul et peccator” we are both sinner and saint at the same time.
No perfection here, therefore God continues to supply us with forgiveness through His desired means of Word and Sacrament for the forgiveness of sins. Our ASSURANCE OF FAITH comes from the Word of God and not our faith. Faith simply receives [believes] the Word of God. Thru this Word we grown in the assurance of the faith which continues to receive/believe this Word of reconciliation.
Our faith doesn’t determine forgiveness but clings to the promise of the Word. Eph. 2:8-9.
But I wander. Look forward to more of your views on 1 Cor. 10 & 11 my dear Michael S.[John Calvin] Heiser. 🙂 🙂 🙂
revgreg: on poitn #1 – nope, I’m not arguing that. I just think Paul meant what he said when he said the old man was crucified and dead (not mostly dead, as in the Princess Bride). We still struggle against sin, as Paul notes in Romans 7 – but what is he struggling with (read it closely)? Not the old man — but the flesh. Our English Bible translations have really done us a disservice here, inserting “old nature” and such language where the Greek has “sarx” (flesh).
STICK with this topic, Mike.
A couple years ago I corresponded several times with the justly-famous Catholic [which I am not] evangelist Fr. John McCloskey. Among other factors, the conversion of Bernard Nathanson caused me to delve into the current manifestations of the liturgical tradition. Fr. McCloskey was gracious to reply to my inquiries [i’m not yet a scholar] and made a point in one such response: “Read all you can about particularly its history. All Christians shared Him in this way until 1517. he is at Heart of the Church in Mass and his abiding Eucharistic presence”
I have a concern regarding the “Lord’s supper” as it relates to how it’s practiced today. Did Jesus DIRECT his disciples to “drink out of it all of you”? Meaning the drinking vessel that he blessed was to be “past from each hand to mouth”? (everyone was to drink the contents FROM OUT of that one cup)??
Also, does the “cup” and the “drink” show the inseparable relationship of the new covenant (cup) and the blood (drink) of our Lord when blessed??
as well, is it true that more than one drinking vessel was introduced as a result of the germ theory around a 100 years ago??
They used one cup because most people had few; no one in first century Palestine had multiple table settings. The literal sharing also showed community and solidarity, but that is not the only means that such a concept can be shown. Just gathering around a table today presumes the same idea. On the germ thing, I would suppose so. Lots of cleanliness habits changed once germs were understood.